Factsheet Interim measures - European Court of Human Rights ...

Factsheet - Interim measures
Risk of sexual exploitation
M. v. the United Kingdom (no. 16081/08)
01.12.2009
The applicant alleged that she had been trafficked and forced into prostitution in her
country of origin, Uganda. She alleged that there was a risk she might be found by the
traffickers and subjected once again to sexual exploitation if she was deported. The
applicant relied on Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and Article 3
(prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Rule 39 was applied to
prevent her deportation until her application had been examined. The case was
ultimately struck out after the British Government and the applicant reached a friendly
settlement.
Risk of family vengeance
H.N. v. the Netherlands (no. 20651/11)
03.10.2012
The applicant, an Afghan national, fled her country to escape a forced marriage. She
alleged that if returned to Afghanistan she would face reprisals by her family, even death
(relying on Articles 2 and 3). Rule 39 was applied to prevent her expulsion until her
application had been examined. The application is currently pending before the Court
and has been communicated to the respondent Government.
Risk of harm to private and family life
Exceptionally, Rule 39 has been applied in cases that engage Article 8 (right to respect
for private and family life), where there is a potentially irreparable risk to private or
family life.
Amrollahi v. Denmark (no. 56811/00)
11.07.2002
The applicant alleged that his deportation to Iran would sever his family relationship with
his Danish wife, two children and daughter-in-law, since they could not be expected to
follow him to that country. Rule 39 was applied to prevent his expulsion until his
application had been examined. The Court ultimately reached the conclusion that there
would be a violation of Article 8 if he were deported to Iran.
Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (no. 14600/05)
06.12.2005
The applicants, a mother and her daughter, alleged that the daughter’s removal to
Israel, where her father lived, would be in breach of Article 8. Rule 39 was applied to
prevent her removal until the application had been examined. The Court, based in
particular on the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction,
ultimately reached the conclusion that there would be no violation of Article 8 in the
event of her removal to Israel.
Risk of a flagrant denial of justice
Rule 39 may also be applied in cases where Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and
6 (right to a fair trial) are engaged, where there is a risk of a “flagrant denial of justice”
in the event of expulsion/extradition.
Soering v. the United Kingdom (no. 14038/88)
07.07.1989
In this case the Court indicated to the British Government under Rule 39 that it would be
desirable not to extradite the applicant to the United States of America while the
proceedings were pending before it. The Court explained in its judgment on the merits
that “an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in
4